Behaviorists place "an emphasis on producing observable and measurable outcomes in students" (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 56). They believe that learning occurs when learners show the correct response to a certain stimulus (Smith & Ragan, 1999). The current instructional design application of behavioral objectives is reminiscent of these behaviorist views. However, most current instructional designers writing objectives based on action do not share the behaviorists' disinterest in the cognitive processes that also take place. Rather, they write objectives with an attempt to extract "best evidence" of the cognitive processes that cannot be directly observed.
Ertmer, P. and Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-72.
Smith, P. and Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dick and Carey instructional design model
Walter Dick and Lou Carey (1996) advocate a systems approach model for designing instruction in the fourth edition of their text, The Systematic Design of Instruction. Their work is based on the behaviorist view that there is a predictable link between a stimulus and the response it produces in a learner (Colaric, n.d.). It is the designer's responsibility to determine the sub-skills a student must master in order for the behavior to be learned and choose the stimulus and strategy for instruction in order to assemble the sub-skills. The basic steps in the Dick and Carey instructional design model are as follows:
For a visual of the Dick and Carey design model, visit http://www.student.seas.gwu.edu/~tlooms/ISD/GIFS/dc_design.gif.
Colaric, S. (n.d.). Systems approach model for designing instruction. Retrieved September 2, 2002, from Pennsylvania State University, Personal Web page: http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/s/m/smc258/KB/DickCarey.html
Dick, W. and Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishing.
The idea of assessing students based on observable performance started with behaviorism. According to Ertmer & Newby (1993), "Behaviorism equates learning with changes in either the form or frequency of observable performance" (p. 55). Once a student can display the proper response following the presentation of a certain environmental stimulus, learning has been achieved. Traditional behaviorist assessment makes no evaluation of the knowledge structure or mental processes leading to a student's response.
Criterion-referenced assessment, which measures what a student can do as compared to behavior described in specific learning objectives (Smith & Ragan, 1999), is based on behaviorist principles. Such assessment is used to determine a student's individual competency in skills defined as goals for instruction, as opposed to rank them with other learners.
Ertmer, P. and Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-72.
Smith, P. and Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Behaviorist theories contributed to the development of "more efficient methods of creating directed instruction" (Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, 1996, p. 62). Systems models take information from learning theories and turn them into step-by-step procedures for planning instruction. Systems models were developed in response to problems teachers were having in satisfying the needs of large numbers of students. According to Saettler (1990) these models were initially embraced more by military and industrial trainers than by K-12 classroom teachers. While systems approaches are heavily used in the design and development of self-contained tutorials, teachers can also use the same approach to plan their own directed instruction with technology. Systems models can help teachers evaluate the effectiveness of their own teaching as well as the usefulness of computer-based resources. Most instructional design models and methods are rooted in systems models.
Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J. & Havriluk, M.A. (1996). Learning theories and integration models (Chapter 3). In Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, Integrating educational technology into teaching. Prentice Hall.
Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Cognitive psychology has influenced the types of goals and objectives that are developed as a result of task analysis (Smith & Ragan, 1999). In addition to observable performance, attention is now given to the underlying "understanding" of a performance. For example, an objective might specify that a learner should be able to explain the reasoning behind his/her performance. Bloom's taxonomy addresses the cognitive domain.
Smith, P. and Rag, T. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cognitivists conduct learner analyses to determine a learner's predisposition to learning and decide how to design instruction so that is can be assimilated according to the learner's existing mental structures (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Learner characteristics are considered when a designer plans what instructional techniques, called learning strategies, to use in the instruction (Smith & Ragan, 1999). Strategies that focus on structuring, organizing, and sequencing information for optimal processing are based on cognitivism. For example, outlining, summarizing, synthesizing, and advance organizers.
Ertmer, P. and Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-72.
Smith, P. and Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Robert Gagne, among others who developed taxonomies, made one of the first attempts to classify learning behaviors and supply specific measures for determining different levels of learning. Gagne developed a taxonomy for intellectual skills, one of his five learned capabilities. Closely related to the development of taxonomies are instructional objectives and instructional systems design.
Kearsley, G. (n.d.). Taxonomies. Retrieved September 7, 2002, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/taxonomy.html
A prerequisite is something a person must know or be able to do before they are able to learn something else (Smith & Ragan, 1999). To determine prerequisite information, an analysis must be done from the learner's (novice's) perspective, rather than the expert's perspective. An expert tends to overlook some of the things they needed to know in order to achieve the learning goal. Determining prerequisite skills does not specify instructional strategies. An analysis for prerequisites can be used for a top-down, problem-based environment as well as a bottom-up structured instructional strategy.
Smith, P. and Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
With the shift to cognitivism, analysis of relevant concepts goes beyond behavioral observations of job performance. "Content analysis has outgrown the mere listing of statements the learner will be able to recite. It has advanced way beyond the old conventions of S-R tables" (Tiemann and Markle, 1984, p. 26).
During task analysis, goal statements are transformed into a format that can be used to guide the rest of the instructional design process (Smith & Ragan, 1999). To complete a learning task analysis:
Upon completion of a task analysis, the designer has a list of goals describing what learners should know or be able to do upon completion of instruction, as well as the prerequisite skills an knowledge needed to achieve those goals.
Smith, P. and Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tiemann, P. and Markle, S. (1984). On getting expertise into an expert system. Performance and Instruction Journal, 23 (9), 25-29.
As a result of the change in goals and methods of education, constructivist learning environments tend to use more qualitative assessment strategies rather than quantitative ones (Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, 1996). For example, one of the more popular ways to assess students in a constructivist learning environment is through portfolios. Portfolios consist of samples of students' work and products developed. A portfolio might also include teacher narration describing students' work habits, strengths and weaknesses. Performance-based assessments and checklists of criteria used to judge students' performance might also be included (Linn, 1994).
According to Wiggins (1990), "Assessment is authentic when we directly examine student performance on worthy intellectual tasks" (par. 1). Assessments should be built on intellectual challenges such as problem-solving, experimental research, discussion, and writing. Furthermore, the goal of assessment is primarily to support the needs of the learner. The best tests should teach students the type of work that matters most.
Linn, R. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy promises and technical measurement standards. Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4-14.
Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J. & Havriluk, M.A. (1996). Learning theories and integration models (Chapter 3). In Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, Integrating educational technology into teaching. Prentice Hall.
Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. [Electronic Version]. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests Measurement and Evaluation. (ERIC Identifier ED328611). Retrieved September 3, 2002, from: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed328611.html
While constructivists differ among themselves about how much guidance a teacher should provide, all agree that there should be some flexibility in achieving desired goals (Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, 1996). Most constructivist approaches emphasize exploration over "getting the right answer." A few of the radical constructivists believe that students should have total freedom and infinite time when it comes to learning through exploration. However, Perkins (1991) states, "Education given over entirely to WIG (without any given) instruction would prove grossly inefficient and ineffective, failing to pass on in straightforward ways the achievements of the past" (p. 20).
Perkins, D. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31 (5), 18-23).
Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J. & Havriluk, M.A. (1996). Learning theories and integration models (Chapter 3). In Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, Integrating educational technology into teaching. Prentice Hall.
Students solving problems, whether in a specific content area or in an interdisciplinary approach, is the focus of most constructivist models (Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, 1996). For example, one problem might require students to use only math skills, while another might require math, science and language arts skills. According to Jungck (1991) constructivist methods often integrate problem posing, problem solving and "persuasion of peers" (p. 155). Furthermore, problems can be presented with specific goals, as "what if" questions or as open-ended questions. Problem solving in a constructivist learning environments is usually more complex and demands more time and use of varied skills than problem solving with directed instruction.
Jungck, J. (1991). Constructivism, computer exploratoriums, and collaborative learning: Construction scientific knowledge. Teaching Education, 3 (2), 151-170.
Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J. & Havriluk, M.A. (1996). Learning theories and integration models (Chapter 3). In Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. Prentice Hall.
Most constructivist approaches advocate what Perkins (1991) terms "richer learning environments" (p. 19) as opposed to the "minimalist" classroom environment, which depends on the teacher, textbooks and prepared materials (Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, 1996). According to Perkins, most constructivist models use any combination of the following five basic resources.
Perkins, D. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31 (5), 18-23.
Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J. & Havriluk, M.A. (1996). Learning theories and integration models (Chapter 3). In Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, Integrating educational technology into teaching. Prentice Hall.
Visual formats and mental models
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) is a strong advocate of helping students build good "mental models" of problems to be solved (Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, 1996). To promote the use of these mental models, teachers should present problems in visual rather than written formats. CTGV researchers (1990) say, "Visual formats allow students to develop their own pattern recognition skills," and they are "dynamic, rich , and spatial" (p. 3). The use of visual formats may be particularly important for low-achieving students who have difficulty reading.
Cognition and Technology Groups at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19 (6), 2-10.
Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J. & Havriluk, M.A. (1996). Learning theories and integration models (Chapter 3). In Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, Integrating educational technology into teaching. Prentice Hall.